Consultation outcome 

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has carefully considered the feedback received through this consultation and has begun to develop a policy position on lifejacket wear. This policy is intended to align with the consultation feedback detailed in this report and will involve an amendment to Marine Order 504 to clarify the existing requirement for all domestic commercial vessels to have a documented risk assessment and written procedure addressing lifejacket wear in their safety management system. The proposed amendments to the national law regulatory framework will be released for public consultation this year.  

AMSA is currently in the process of commencing a safety education campaign to provide guidance to industry on the benefits of lifejacket wear, the different types and styles available on the market and the servicing requirements that need to be met.

Background 

Data1 and research2 strongly support that wearing lifejackets significantly improves the timeframe for survival for people who fall overboard and therefore saves lives.  

Mandatory lifejacket wear has already been introduced for certain recreational vessels in most Australian states and territories. Subsequent incident data and research in Victoria and Tasmania has shown that fatalities from drowning have decreased.  

Currently, Marine Order 504 sets out the minimum elements of a safety management system including the risk of a person-overboard event. However, not all safety management systems include circumstances when a lifejacket must be worn or are extensive enough to minimise the risk of drowning. Furthermore, the national law specifies very limited circumstances when a lifejacket must be worn. These circumstances are linked to the construction standards for a vessel.

__________________________________________________

^{1] Incident data from the domestic commercial vessel industry 
[2] Paul Luckin, AMSA survivability expert 
Peden, et al. 2018 ‘Personal, social, and environmental factors associated with lifejacket wear in adults and children: A systematic literature review’ 
Moran, K. 2019. ‘Can You Float? Part 2 - Perceptions and Practice of Lifejacket Use Among Young Adults’} 

The consultation process 

The consultation commenced on 26 October 2021 and closed on 17 December 2021, a period of eight weeks.  

AMSA published a consultation paper exploring the safety benefits and feasibility of introducing mandatory lifejacket wear requirements on domestic commercial vessels. The paper outlined three proposed approaches to mandating lifejacket wear and sought feedback from industry on these approaches.  

The three proposed approaches are set out in the table below: 

Proposals	Vessels captured under the proposal
Proposal 1: Mandate lifejacket wear requirements on all domestic commercial vessels, at all times, when on deck	This proposal will mandate lifejacket wear requirements on all domestic commercial vessels.
Proposal 2: Mandate lifejacket wear requirements on some domestic commercial vessels	This proposal will mandate lifejacket wear requirements on:  domestic commercial vessels less than 7.5 metres in length  solo/single-handed operations (where there is only one member of crew onboard the vessel)  fishing vessels of any length, when on the deck  unpowered barges that do not have rails or means to prevent a person falling overboard   In addition, it will also mandate the requirement to have a documented risk assessment and procedure addressing lifejacket wear in the vessel’s safety management system.
Proposal 3: Continue with lifejacket carriage requirements and do not introduce mandatory wear. However, mandate the requirement for a documented risk assessment and procedure addressing lifejacket wear in their safety management system.	This proposal will not mandate lifejacket wear requirements on domestic commercial vessels. However, it will mandate the requirement for all domestic commercial vessels to have a documented risk assessment and procedure addressing lifejacket wear in their safety management system.

The paper included the following guiding questions for consideration:  

1. Do you support the introduction of mandatory lifejacket wear requirements?  
2. Should mandatory lifejacket wear requirements be introduced for all domestic commercial vessels, some, or none?  
3. Do you currently wear a lifejacket while operating?  
4. Should mandatory lifejacket wear requirements be introduced for select domestic commercial vessels as specified in proposal 2?  
5. Do you agree with the identified challenges/barriers to wearing a lifejacket?  
6. Do you agree that lifejackets save lives?  
7. What would encourage you to wear a lifejacket?  
8. Are there any other comments or feedback you wish to provide AMSA with on this matter?  

The consultation paper was accompanied by a brochure outlining the safety issues and what AMSA was seeking feedback on.  

To further support the consultation, AMSA developed a section on the AMSA website that housed the consultation paper and brochure as well as additional information and answers to frequently asked questions.  

The consultation was promoted through a media release posted on the AMSA website and through the regular ‘AMSA Update’ newsletter which is emailed to those who have signed up for the free subscription.  The consultation was also promoted through AMSA’s social media channels including Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, linking our audiences back to the consultation webpage. AMSA Liaison Officers and AMSA Connect assisted with raising awareness of the consultation process through their regular stakeholder engagement activities.  

The public were invited to provide feedback via email, phone, mail, or an online questionnaire.

Results of consultation 

AMSA received a total of 1375 submissions during the consultation period.  

• 1326 were received via the online submission form  
• 49 were received via email 

Additionally, AMSA received 708 comments via social media.

Key themes 

Overall, the feedback indicated a clear preference to address lifejacket wear through the vessel’s risk assessment and safety management system. This would involve the owner/operator assessing the need for lifejacket wear and developing a written procedure based on their vessel and operation. However, there was also support for mandatory wear under specific heightened risk situations. 

Key themes of the submissions received are outlined below:  

1. 85.5% of respondents agreed that lifejackets save lives 
2. 63% of respondents stated they do not wear a lifejacket when operating 
3. a high number of submissions were supportive of a risk assessment/safety management system approach to lifejacket wear (proposal 3) due to the diverse range and varying needs of the domestic commercial vessel fleet  
4. there were also many submissions that supported mandatory wear under specific heightened risk situations, such as operating solo, during rough weather, reduced visibility (including at night), when crossing a coastal bar, when operating over the side or when working on an open deck. 
5. concerns around wearability of lifejackets—for example being bulky and restrictive, and the risk of overheating 
6. concerns around risks involved with entanglement and accidental inflation 
7. concerns around practicality on passenger vessels

Summary of submissions received via online form  

Results from the online questionnaire are outlined in the table below:  

Q1. Do you support the introduction of mandatory lifejacket wear requirements?
YES	222 (17%)
NO	1094 (82.5%)
Q2. Should mandatory lifejacket wear be introduced on all domestic commercial vessels, some, or none?
ALL	96 (7%)
SOME	532 (40%)
NONE	685 (52%)
Q3. Do you currently wear a lifejacket while operating?
YES	465 (35%)
NO	836 (63%)
Q4A. Do you agree with all four proposals under proposal 2?
YES	213 (16%)
NO	1076 (81%)
Q4B. Do you agree or disagree with operation 1 (DCVs less than 7.5m)?
AGREE	158 (12%)
DISAGREE	1085 (82%)
Q4C. Do you agree or disagree with operation 2 (solo operators)?
AGREE	278 (21%)
DISAGREE	949 (72.5%)
Q4D. Do you agree or disagree with operation 3 (fishing vessels when on deck)?
AGREE	601 (45%)
DISAGREE	616 (46%)
Q5. If proposal 2 is preferred, should proposal 3 be included for all domestic commercial vessels not included in proposal 2?
YES	375 (28%)
NO	753 (56.5%)
Q6. Do you agree with the identified challenges/barriers to wearing a lifejacket?
YES	790 (59.5%)
NO	369 (28%)
Q7. Do you agree that lifejackets save lives?
YES	1134 (85.5%)
NO	126 (9.5%)